qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Extend TPM support with a QEMU-external TPM


From: Stefan Berger
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Extend TPM support with a QEMU-external TPM
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:21:18 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0

On 04/16/2015 02:55 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:38:43 -0400
Stefan Berger <address@hidden> wrote:

The following series of patches extends TPM support with an
external TPM that offers a Linux CUSE (character device in userspace)
interface. This TPM lets each VM access its own private vTPM.
The CUSE TPM supports suspend/resume and migration. Much
out-of-band functionality necessary to control the CUSE TPM is
implemented using ioctl's.

The series extends the TPM support so far that most functionality of
TPM support on a physical platform is now available to each x86 VM,
this includes the Physical Presence Interface support that has
its counter-part in the SeaBIOS and is implemented using ACPI.

http://www.seabios.org/pipermail/seabios/2015-March/008978.html
is it already merged?

Is it possible to use MMIO region instead of allocating tpm_ppi_anchor
and tpm_ppi in BIOS memory?
That would simplify BIOS part a bit and significantly simplify ACPI code
as most of it is dealing with figuring out address of tpm_ppi.
Which (if it works) I guess brings us back to the idea of using
a pci device with a bar where we can stick tpm+vm id+whatever?

Well, at least the current implementation works with these patches + CUSE TPM + patched SeaBIOS .

So the PCI bar does not get reset during a machine reboot and thus preserves values? I did not model the TPM TIS as a PCI device, since it typically is not such a device, but a LPC devices (close to ISA type of device).

If we wanted to achieve that this method also works on real hardware, with SeaBIOS running piggy-backed on coreboot, then we shouldn't assume a PCI device, since it won't be. Otherwise, what are we trying to achieve? Is the ACPI code the problem?

    Stefan




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]